Simhadri Satya Narayana Rao vs M. Budda Prasad And Ors

CITATION: 1990 SCR Supl. (3) 701 1994 SCC Supl. (1) 449 1990 SCALE (2)1302

ACT: Election Law: Representation of the People Act, 1951. Section 81 and 86--Election petition--Filing on the re- opening day of the High Court after vacation--Statutory period of 45 days over during the vacation--Whether liable to be dismissed under section 86 of the Act? Notification dated 29. 12. 1989 issued by the High Court notifying the Sankranthi vacation--Its interpretation and scope--No distinction can be made between the court and the office (Registry)--Manner and extent of functioning during the vacation--Whether in the light of the wording of the notification, the High Court remained closed between 2.1. 1990 and 12.1.1990 so as to enable the election petitioners to invoke Section 10 of the General Clauses Act.

HEADNOTE: The appellant had contested for the assembly seat from Avinagoda constituency and declared elected on November 26, 1989 to the Andhra Pradesh Legislative Assembly. An election petition calling in question his election was fried by the respondents in the High Court of Andhra Pradesh on the re- opening day of the Court after Sankranthi vacation on Janu- ary 15, 1990. As the statutory period of fortyfive days under section 81 of the Act had expired during the vaca- tions, the appellant moved an application praying for dis- missal of the election petition, inter alia on the ground of limitation. It was contended that the Registry was open during this vacation, two Assistant Registrars were on duty, urgent applications were disposed of by the vacation judges and in fact 25 election petitions were filed during this period. The High Court rejected all the contentions and dismissed his application and relying on Section 10 of the General Clauses Act held that filing of the Election Peti- tion on the re-opening day of the Court was within limita- tion. The correctness of the decision of the High Court has been challenged by the successful candidate in this appeal by special leave. Affirming the judgment of the High Court and dismissing the appeal, this Court, HELD: Sections 4 and 5 of the Limitation Act have no application to the election petitions under Representation of the People Act. The benefit 702 Of Section 10 of the General Clauses Act can however, be availed to have limitation saved under the Act. [704D] The notification dated December 29, 1989 nowhere stated that the Registry would remain open. A bare reading of the said notification leaves no manner of doubt that the Andhra Pradesh High Court remained closed for all purposes except for applications of urgent nature for which vacation judges and vacation officers were designated. There was no provi- sion for filing of Election Petitions in the notification and as such the filing of the election petition by the respondents on re-opening day of the High Court by invoking Section 10 of the General Clauses Act, was justified. There is no infirmity in the reasoning and the conclusions reached by the High Court. [706C, 708C] Hukumdev Narain Yadav v. Lalit Narain Mishra, [1974] 3 SCR 31; Hari Shanker Tripathi v. Shiv Harsh and Others, [1976] U.J. (S.C.) 242 and H.H. Raja Harinder Singh v. S. Karnail Singh, [1957] S.C.R. 208, followed.

JUDGMENT: